Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 The SNP will have to sacrifice someone. Are the allegations dead in the water then?
Dawnrazor Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: The SNP will have to sacrifice someone. Are the allegations dead in the water then? I think the police are still making enquiries so he's not out of the woods yet, he's really pushing how embarrassing it is for the Scottish Government and how unfair the process has been.
jumpship Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 The Yoons will be raging down the lodge the night.
Dawnrazor Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, jumpship said: The Yoons will be raging down the lodge the night. Why's that then?
jumpship Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said: Why's that then? Gammons are always raging.
Dawnrazor Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, jumpship said: Gammons are always raging. Aye OK.
Mikey1874 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said: What will be the fall out from this? Procedures will be tightened. Police investigation will be only action now. If found guilty or if there is enough other evidence the investigation will start again.
Armageddon Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty. Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1. These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome.
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, Armageddon said: I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty. Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1. These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome. Weren’t the allegations made about two years before they became public?
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 51 minutes ago, Armageddon said: I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty. Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1. These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome. Utter balls. Members of the public are not afforded anonymity, nor privacy until "proven guilty". This is a sham victory- he is painting it to be a vindication- whilst he is still under criminal investigation- a "look at me I'm innocent, and this proves it" - nothing of the kind
Sarah O Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Really pleased at this news. Splendid outcome for Eck however not a surprise. Hope he enjoys a glass or two of vino tonight.
JamboX2 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, Sarah O said: Really pleased at this news. Splendid outcome for Eck however not a surprise. Hope he enjoys a glass or two of vino tonight. He's still under a police investigation and this in no way is a decision which says he did not do what is alleged. Hardly scope for celebrating. Serious questions for Scot Govt's procedures. But hardly a case for celebrating.
JamboX2 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Armageddon said: I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty. Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1. These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome. He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims. Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 16 minutes ago, JamboX2 said: He's still under a police investigation and this in no way is a decision which says he did not do what is alleged. Hardly scope for celebrating. Serious questions for Scot Govt's procedures. But hardly a case for celebrating. He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process. here piggy piggy piggy!
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 17 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process. here piggy piggy piggy! That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though? Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process?
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Boris said: That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though? Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process? Its the cost Boris! Surely you bridle at the cost to taxpayers of a pyrrhic victory when the accused has wracked up half a million in bills and is STILL on the hook. If it happened to you or I - a couple of grand maybe in legals, with the outcome utterly inconsequential. He chose the most expensive counsel- that's his issue- public liability should be limited to the costs of an average person
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said: He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims. Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened. Agree with your second point regards the SG handling of it ("The Scottish government confirmed the civil servant tasked with investigating the complaints, Judith MacKinnon, had discussed both cases with the complainants several weeks before they were formally lodged. That meant the entire investigation, launched in January 2018, was a breach of fair process and was illegal in common law.Ministers admitted to the court that this gave rise to questions of “apparent bias” by the officials involved." From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/scottish-government-acted-unlawfully-over-alex-salmond-claims-court-rules ) So over to the police now, I guess.
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Its the cost Boris! Surely you bridle at the cost to taxpayers of a pyrrhic victory when the accused has wracked up half a million in bills and is STILL on the hook. If it happened to you or I - a couple of grand maybe in legals, with the outcome utterly inconsequential. He chose the most expensive counsel- that's his issue- public liability should be limited to the costs of an average person He's entitled to a defence, no? Not his fault he won!
SE16 3LN Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 How could you actually get this wrong? Some people seem to think rules don't apply to them.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 16 minutes ago, Boris said: He's entitled to a defence, no? Not his fault he won! Comrade, we are ALL entitled to a defence- but some defences are more equal than others- should we not all be equal under the law? He BROUGHT the review- surely his "defence" would have been a union rep/ lawyer at his meetings with the govt whilst under investigation?
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Comrade, we are ALL entitled to a defence- but some defences are more equal than others- should we not all be equal under the law? He BROUGHT the review- surely his "defence" would have been a union rep/ lawyer at his meetings with the govt whilst under investigation? He brough the review because the process was illegal!
JamboX2 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 45 minutes ago, Boris said: Agree with your second point regards the SG handling of it ("The Scottish government confirmed the civil servant tasked with investigating the complaints, Judith MacKinnon, had discussed both cases with the complainants several weeks before they were formally lodged. That meant the entire investigation, launched in January 2018, was a breach of fair process and was illegal in common law.Ministers admitted to the court that this gave rise to questions of “apparent bias” by the officials involved." From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/scottish-government-acted-unlawfully-over-alex-salmond-claims-court-rules ) So over to the police now, I guess. This whole thing has totally shown up the populism around him if you ask me. The Scottish Government HR team has totally dropped a clanger. However all he has done is have the case dismissed on the process. The other elements of his case fell when he agreed to dismiss. He also will not see sight of the report he was desperate to get a hold of as Lord Pentland agreed with the Government that it was improper pending the other investigation. As Roddy Dunlop QC (Scottish Government's Counsel) said - this in no way has any impact of the veracity of the complaints. Yet, there are those more interested in attacking Leslie Evans (Perm Sec of Scot Govt), who Sturgeon is backing, and building some faux conspiracy. Scottish politics has had 3 major cases about this type of stuff in the past 10 years and not come out well: Rowley, Bill Walker and now this.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, Boris said: He brough the review because the process was illegal! So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)? Shame on you Boris Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions? Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)? Shame on you Boris Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions? Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde I think that's his point I.e. He wasn't represented at the start hence the lawsuit. Only party to blame here isr the govt, IMO.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Boris said: I think that's his point I.e. He wasn't represented at the start hence the lawsuit. Only party to blame here isr the govt, IMO. 1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union. Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation. Feck him, he should pay his own bills
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, doctor jambo said: 1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union. Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation. Feck him, he should pay his own bills I think the point is they started the process without telling him, therefore unable to be represented!
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, doctor jambo said: He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process. here piggy piggy piggy! He raised the money to fight this. One of those online things. £80/100k was the number he needed.
XB52 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, doctor jambo said: 1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union. Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation. Feck him, he should pay his own bills so he brings a case, wins it and you want him to pay for the privilege?? Maybe we should have rape victims only allowed to bring someone to court if they can afford it?? (OK a bit extreme but every one has the right to go to court and, if they win, they get costs). This case is a terrible one for Salmond and the Government and, although Salmond has won this part, there is still the legal case to be heard, if it goes ahead. If not, there will still be a parliamentary inquiry I presume. IF, at the end, he doesn't have a case to answer then he can declare he is the winner but at what cost to the party
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: 1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union. Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation. Feck him, he should pay his own bills Your hate has blinded you. Aw well.
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 25 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)? Shame on you Boris Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions? Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde He went to court because he had not been afforded representation, because he was not told of the allegations. How can 2 people be allowed to discuss things before they report it. That's not right. If he's did wrong, he'll get his baws booted, but if this is bollox, they should be charged.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Your hate has blinded you. Aw well. I don't hate him. - does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you? Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth eye watering
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: He went to court because he had not been afforded representation, because he was not told of the allegations. How can 2 people be allowed to discuss things before they report it. That's not right. If he's did wrong, he'll get his baws booted, but if this is bollox, they should be charged. who should be charged?
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 A bit weird that Alex said he was making a come back, then a week or two later this happens.
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, doctor jambo said: I don't hate him. - does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you? Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth eye watering He crowd funded this.
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, doctor jambo said: who should be charged? The accusers. If it's proved they lied.
Gorgiewave Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Regardless of the outcome of these proceedings or of the police investigation, the main thing is that Indyref 2 is on and independence is imminent. Salvadores de la patria.
doctor jambo Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, ri Alban said: The accusers. If it's proved they lied. you must be off your peeper if you think women making claims of sexual assault should be charged if their accuser gets found not guilty! What a way to deter victims of sexual crime from coming forward. - though I suspect its just your fandom bypassing rational thought.
ri Alban Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, doctor jambo said: you must be off your peeper if you think women making claims of sexual assault should be charged if their accuser gets found not guilty! What a way to deter victims of sexual crime from coming forward. - though I suspect its just your fandom bypassing rational thought. I think liars should be charged, not the way you've put it. Or do you think men should have there lives ruined because of vindictive women, without comebacks.
Roxy Hearts Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Whatever the outcome. SNP will still get my vote. Best of the bunch!
Mikey1874 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Boris said: That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though? Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process? It seemed to me like an aggressive campaign to try to establish his innocence into the public view. I thought he should have stayed quiet.
Boris Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: It seemed to me like an aggressive campaign to try to establish his innocence into the public view. I thought he should have stayed quiet. Perhaps, although given the allegations, you'd want to clear your name, and in doing so, you'd want procedures to be followed properly. Im certainly not saying Salmond is innocent because of this ruling.
jambos are go! Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Was the case dismissed on a technicality?
Dunks Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 2 hours ago, jambos are go! said: Was the case dismissed on a technicality? No.
Dunks Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 I would be very surprised if the Police bring any charges against him.
coconut doug Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 11 hours ago, JamboX2 said: He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims. Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened. Really! Don't you think the people in the government who leaked the story and the Daily record and other media who sensationalised it are responsible for making it more public than it need have been? Did he not express a concern for the complainants when he stated o/s the court that the inabilty of the SG to carry out their own procedures potentially compromised those complaining about him and any future complaints that might be made against any other employee. If i were in his position and innocent of the claims i would regard them as malicious and have no consideration for the complainants at all. Scottish government were not cackhanded they were incompetent and couldn't follow their own guidelines. They leaked confidential information to the press breaking their own protocols. Remeniscent of Carmichaels lies about Nicola. Tyhe question of what happened is not really relevant at the moment unless AS has broken the law. There is no other investigation at present because the SG have failed their employees.
coconut doug Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 10 hours ago, JamboX2 said: This whole thing has totally shown up the populism around him if you ask me. The Scottish Government HR team has totally dropped a clanger. However all he has done is have the case dismissed on the process. The other elements of his case fell when he agreed to dismiss. He also will not see sight of the report he was desperate to get a hold of as Lord Pentland agreed with the Government that it was improper pending the other investigation. As Roddy Dunlop QC (Scottish Government's Counsel) said - this in no way has any impact of the veracity of the complaints. Yet, there are those more interested in attacking Leslie Evans (Perm Sec of Scot Govt), who Sturgeon is backing, and building some faux conspiracy. Scottish politics has had 3 major cases about this type of stuff in the past 10 years and not come out well: Rowley, Bill Walker and now this. " shown up the populism around him" I've no idea what this means and i suspect you don't either. Which other elements "fell" and what do you mean by fell in this instance? According to AS and his team the Government case fell at the first hurdle and was lost, meaning there was no need to consider any of the other elements of concerning the conduct of the Scottish Government. What evidence do you have to prove that AS was desperate to get hold of the SG report? If he is charge he will have access to all allegations made against him will he not? He would have a pretty good idea of what's in it anyway. How do you know it isnt a conspiracy? The secretary of state for Scotland conspired with civil servants and others to discredit Nicola did he not? This case has nothing in common with Walker or Rowley. They were convicted or admitted their guilt, AS remains innocent. It is the height of cheek for you to remind us that this decision has no bearing as to whether the allegations are true or not and at the same time classify Salmond along with these low lifes. Come back and tell us all about it as and when AS has been convicted. Is there not a law against this kind of behaviour? Do Lawyers not have some professional standards.
Beast Boy Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 9 hours ago, doctor jambo said: I don't hate him. - does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you? Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth eye watering Comes across as if you hate him. Almost like you want him to be found guilty.
coconut doug Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 9 hours ago, doctor jambo said: I don't hate him. - does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you? Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth eye watering Salmond's team offered to go to legal arbitration to seriously restrict the costs. The Scottish government refused. It is not Salmond's fault the proceedings cost so much. If he had been at fault then he would have been liable. Does the phrase "innocent until proved guilty" mean anything to you?
ri Alban Posted January 9, 2019 Posted January 9, 2019 10 hours ago, Gorgiewave said: Regardless of the outcome of these proceedings or of the police investigation, the main thing is that Indyref 2 is on and independence is imminent. Salvadores de la patria. Utter tripe again.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.